| XBK Chat (unofficial archive) A meeting place for past members of Brahma Kumaris
FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups
Profile You have no new messages Log out
Re-writing Murlis and general hypocrisies Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
| XBK Chat Forum Index -> XBK discussions
View previous topic :: View next topic
Author | Message
--- | ---
John Joined: 26 Sep 2005 Posts: 157 Location: UK |
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 8:11 am Post subject: |
Maybe BKs teach a simplified version of what goes on. Seems the more you look into the details it stops being so...errrr..simple. Then again it could be more like 'chinese whispers' as to how things happened in 'Sakar' days. Maybe we should send in some XBK representatives for some clarification
the prisoner Joined: 18 Aug 2004 Posts: 23 |
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 6:07 pm Post subject: |
Uddhava wrote :
Quote:
I think that Brahma Baba's first visions were in 1936, so does anyone know when the first murli was - can we be more precise than 'the 1950's'? When were the murlis first recorded in writing / on tape? Is it only murlis from 1964 to 1969 that survive and if so what happened to the earlier ones?
When centres opened outside of Mt Abu then summaries of murlis were sent out by post to be read out at the centres. Later, a tape recorder became available (I think in 1964 which corresponds to the beginning of the period for which sakar murlis are produced). With the use of tapes, an accurate version of the spoken murli could be made.
Quote:
Quote:
3) Often Shiva did not incarnate for a sakar murli and Brahma spoke it alone.
In that case I am not really sure what 'sakar murli' means.
A sakar murli is the formal event which took place in the History Hall in Madhuban at 6:30AM with Brahma Baba apparently speaking to the class. The actual words spoken sometimes indicate that is Brahma Baba speaking, for example when he relates his own experience. Other times it can only be Shiva e.g. "I descend every kalpa and take this body on loan". Other times it seems ambiguous, but the presumption is that it is Shiva. When Brahma speaks it is with the authority of Shiva even though Shiva may not be present. Perhaps it is this symbiosis of Shiva/Brahma which is at the heart of the BK philiosophy (if it can be called a philosophy), as well as being the most perplexing aspect. In this respect there is a parallel with the Christian trinity.
Quote:
Quote:
4) Shiva sometimes secretly incarnates in the body of a BK without anyone being aware of it - usually when some service is required to be done which the BK in question is not capable to do.
Is this from the dadis rather than the murli? Is it meant to be serious theology?
I think it is from the murlis; if I remember the context was about not becoming too proud of your ability to speak knowledge as it sometimes wasn't you at all. Is it serious theology? I don't know. The murlis seem to include a fair amount of deconstruction of theological systems but seem to avoid attempts to build them. _________________ "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" - Mark Twain
wahl Joined: 19 Jan 2005 Posts: 187 Location: Essex, England |
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 3:29 am Post subject: |
Whilst we are on the subject of sakar and avyakt .............it reminds me that it is important to remember 'how' to read the murli. It is a communication between the Supreme Soul and the soul..........in the language of the soul. So, if we focus intently and literally on the meaning of the physical words, we miss the point. The language of the soul is not in the written words, it is in feelings that those words convey. We have to read between the lines and search for the feeling or virtue that He is trying to comminicate. For example, if the murli refers to 'mothers', then does that mean that it is only the women that He is talking to? No, He is asking us to bring to mind the personality and virtues of the 'mother'..........a mother will give love unconditionally, will constantly forgive, will nurture........etc. These qualities are not limited to the souls that inhabit a female body at this time. They are the qualities of all souls and He want us to find these qualities in ourselves and to emerge them and nurture them and use them. He wants us all to be 'mothers'. So, if we look at the physical body instead of the soul, we can't begin to understand the murli on a deeper level. We have to realise Who is 'teaching' and that it is a Soul to soul lesson in a very subtle and loving language. _________________ om shanti wahl
bansy Joined: 08 Nov 2005 Posts: 84 |
Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 10:18 am Post subject: |
Also on the similar subject lines of AMs and SMs, I am told that Murlis (and also the Gita) are written in the first person and are direct versions from God, whereas all other scriptures are in the third person and mainly the praises of God. Anyone shed a clearer light to this ?
uddhava Joined: 20 Jan 2005 Posts: 142 Location: Paramdham |
Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 10:50 am Post subject: |
bansy wrote:
Also on the similar subject lines of AMs and SMs, I am told that...the Gita are written in the first person and are direct versions from God, whereas all other scriptures are in the third person and mainly the praises of God. Anyone shed a clearer light to this ?
Dear Bansy, Wrong on both counts, who told you this? The Holy Qur'an is believed by Muslims to be almost entirely God speaking in the first person: [2.39] And (as to) those who disbelieve in and reject My communications, they are the inmates of the fire, in it they shall abide. [2.47] O children of Israel! call to mind My favor which I bestowed on you [2.50] And when We parted the sea for you, so We saved you and drowned the followers of Pharoah However, perhaps confusingly God often refers to himself in the third person: [2.255] Allah is He besides Whom there is no god, the Everliving, the Self-subsisting by Whom all subsist; slumber does not overtake Him nor sleep; whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His;... His knowledge extends over the heavens and the earth, and the preservation of them both tires Him not, and He is the Most High, the Great. http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=1320 The Bhagavad Gita is a narration of a conversation between Arjuna and God in which God is referred to in the third person: Arjuna said: "Krishna, first of all you ask me to renounce work, and then again you recommend work with devotion. Now will you kindly tell me definitely which of the two is more beneficial? (5:1) The Bhagavan said: "The renunciation of work and work in devotion are both good for liberation. But, of the two, work in devotional service is better than renunciation of works. (5:2) http://oaks.nvg.org/pv6bk5.html#b
wahl Joined: 19 Jan 2005 Posts: 187 Location: Essex, England |
Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 2:26 pm Post subject: |
Quote:
And when We parted the sea for you, so We saved you and drowned the followers of Pharoah
Who are the 'We'? _________________ om shanti wahl
uddhava Joined: 20 Jan 2005 Posts: 142 Location: Paramdham |
Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 2:44 pm Post subject: |
wahl wrote:
Who are the 'We'?
There is only one God but 'we' is a literary form, figure of speech, also used by monarchs (known as the 'royal we').
the prisoner Joined: 18 Aug 2004 Posts: 23 |
Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 5:13 pm Post subject: |
Uddhava wrote :
Quote:
However, perhaps confusingly God often refers to himself in the third person:
And there are times in the Koran when it cannot be Allah speaking, but is clearly Mohammed :
Quote:
[9.67] The hypocritical men and the hypocritical women are all alike; they enjoin evil and forbid good and withhold their hands; they have forsaken Allah, so He has forsaken them; surely the hypocrites are the Transgressors. [9.71] And (as for) the believing men and the believing women, they are guardians of each other; they enjoin good and forbid evil and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, and obey Allah and His Apostle; (as for) these, Allah will show mercy to them; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise. [9.74] They swear by Allah that they did not speak, and certainly they did speak, the word of unbelief, and disbelieved after their Islam, and they had determined upon what they have not been able to effect, and they did not find fault except because Allah and His Apostle enriched them out of His grace; therefore if they repent, it will be good for them; and if they turn back, Allah will chastise them with a painful chastisement in this world and the hereafter, and they shall not have in the land any guardian or a helper.
However, the most crucial difference with the Koran is the reported line of communication. Initially, the Koran is said to exist on tablets in Heaven from the day of creation onwards. Then the Angel Gabriel transmits it to Mohammed who is in a form of trance. When Mohammed emerges from the trance, he recites the message which is written down by a scribe. After Mohammed's death, the fragments were assembled into the Koran with the longest at the front and the shortest at the back. This means that what is in the Koran is at best third-hand : Allah -> tablet in heaven -> Angel Gabriel -> Mohammed -> scribe -> Koran compiler. This is quite different from hearing a live murli where the communication is direct. In the Old Testament, there are a few occasions where God speaks directly to Moses with witnesses present. In the New Testament, there is at least one occasion (the transfiguration I think) where God speaks directly to a group which includes Jesus. _________________ "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" - Mark Twain
uddhava Joined: 20 Jan 2005 Posts: 142 Location: Paramdham |
Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 5:40 pm Post subject: |
the prisoner wrote:
And there are times in the Koran when it cannot be Allah speaking, but is clearly Mohammed : [9.67] The hypocritical men and the hypocritical women are all alike; they enjoin evil and forbid good and withhold their hands; they have forsaken Allah, so He has forsaken them; surely the hypocrites are the Transgressors. [9.71] And (as for) the believing men and the believing women, they are guardians of each other; they enjoin good and forbid evil and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, and obey Allah and His Apostle; (as for) these, Allah will show mercy to them; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise. [9.74] They swear by Allah that they did not speak, and certainly they did speak, the word of unbelief, and disbelieved after their Islam, and they had determined upon what they have not been able to effect, and they did not find fault except because Allah and His Apostle enriched them out of His grace; therefore if they repent, it will be good for them; and if they turn back, Allah will chastise them with a painful chastisement in this world and the hereafter, and they shall not have in the land any guardian or a helper.
Dear prisoner, Given that in the Qur'an God often refers to himself in the third person, I am not sure why you think this quote is 'clearly Mohammed'.
Quote:
However, the most crucial difference with the Koran is the reported line of communication. Initially, the Koran is said to exist on tablets in Heaven from the day of creation onwards. Then the Angel Gabriel transmits it to Mohammed who is in a form of trance. When Mohammed emerges from the trance, he recites the message which is written down by a scribe. After Mohammed's death, the fragments were assembled into the Koran with the longest at the front and the shortest at the back. This means that what is in the Koran is at best third-hand : Allah -> tablet in heaven -> Angel Gabriel -> Mohammed -> scribe -> Koran compiler. This is quite different from hearing a live murli where the communication is direct.
I agree that the murli trumps the Qur'an although Muslims hold the somewhat unlikely belief that the chain of communication that you mention is, in computer-speak, 'lossless' ie perfect. When God speaks to man, there always seems to be some kind of mediation involved - in Islam it is the angel Gabriel, in BK it is the medium Brahma Baba, although as you say in the Old Testament sometimes God speaks directly to Moses - I am not sure if this means a voice from the sky or what. Anyway as there are problems with the Qur'an there are also problems with the murli as have been mentioned in this thread ie whether it is God speaking or just Brahma Baba.
uddhava Joined: 20 Jan 2005 Posts: 142 Location: Paramdham |
Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 5:56 pm Post subject: |
A Hindu critique of Mohammed: The basis of Islam is the belief that Mohammed regularly went into a state of trance (wahi) and heard a voice dictating Allah's own words... It was probably Swami Vivekananda who first connected the questionable nature of Mohammed's leadership with the nature of his prophethood. Mohammed had to be ruthless in imposing adherence to his belief in his own divine mission because this belief could not stand on its own, based as it was on a delusion. If your neighbour, whom you have known for years as an ordinary businessman, tells you one day that he is hearing God’s voice and that you have to obey his divine instructions from now on, you would not readily give in to his demand, would you? Instead, you would certainly wonder what had happened to him. So, Vivekananda offered one hypothesis of what had happened to Mohammed so as to make him believe in his own selection as God’s sole living spokesman. The specifically Hindu contribution to our understanding of the Quranic revelation is to bring in the yogic experience. As an example of how yogic practice can go wrong, warning against the dangers of experimenting with yoga without competent guidance, Vivekananda mentioned Mohammed: "The yogi says there is a great danger in stumbling upon this state. In a good many cases, there is the danger of the brain being deranged, and, as a rule, you will find that all those men, however great they were, who had stumbled upon this superconscious state without understanding it, groped in the dark, and generally had, along with their knowledge, some quaint superstition. They opened themselves to hallucinations. Mohammed claimed that the Angel Gabriel came to him in a cave one day and took him on the heavenly horse, Burak, and he visited the heavens. But with all that, Mohammed spoke some wonderful truths. If you read the Koran, you find the most wonderful truths mixed with superstitions. How will you explain it? That man was inspired, no doubt, but that inspiration was, as it were, stumbled upon. He was not a trained Yogi, and did not know the reason of what he was doing...Many mystic phenomena the world over come about as cases of stumbling upon certain states of consciousness, which may lead to some kind of "enlightenment" but also to serious delusions...Hindu yogis claim to have left these dangerous mind games behind because their forebears have developed a safe and sound method laid down in such classics as Patanjali's Yoga Sutra...In recent years, Ram Swarup and Sita Ram Goel have further developed Swami Vivekananda's position on the nature of Quranic revelation. Ram Swarup has elaborated on the yogic theory of samadhi (enstasis) states of different levels of purity, which allows for states of high concentration tainted by delusion... It is now generally understood and admitted that certain individuals can sincerely believe that they are the recipients of visual, auditory and mental messages from the Beyond; and also that their sincerity is no proof that these messages really come from where they are claimed to come. So, where did the Quranic messages come from?...Throughout his career as a Prophet (except, as we shall see, at the very beginning), Mohammed genuinely believed that the visions and spoken messages which he “received” were of divine origin. His wahi or Quranic trance seemed to make a far deeper impression on his mind than any ordinary human experience could, and he therefore considered it supremely real...When his soul was thus plunged into the void Muhammad then attained periodic states of ecstasy in which he felt that he had been stripped of his own personality, submitting passively to the invasion of a mysterious force, he experienced the phenomena described above – seeing and hearing things, either inwardly or outwardly, in the mind or the imagination... http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/articles/hinduism/wahi.html
the prisoner Joined: 18 Aug 2004 Posts: 23 |
Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 6:53 pm Post subject: |
Uddhava wrote :
Quote:
Given that in the Qur'an God often refers to himself in the third person, I am not sure why you think this quote is 'clearly Mohammed'
It is not unknown (but a bit peculiar) for individuals to refer to themselves in the third person. However for Allah to say "surely Allah is Mighty, Wise" simply makes no sense. God does not worship himself. These are the words of a preacher encouraging the faithful (or faithless).
Quote:
in the Old Testament sometimes God speaks directly to Moses
If I remember correctly, the voice came from a pillar of fire and from a burning bush on separate occasions. In the case of Jesus, it was a disembodied voice from the heavens.
Quote:
When God speaks to man, there always seems to be some kind of mediation involved - in Islam it is the angel Gabriel, in BK it is the medium Brahma Baba
The claim of Mohammed is that an angel told him something which came originally from Allah. No one else witnessed this - we rely on Mohammed's word that he really did experience that, and have no way to assess whether the angel/spirit was deceiving him or not. In the BK case, the claim is that both Shiva and Brahma are speaking through the body of first Brahma and then Gulzar. This claim is of a different order as 1) you can witness this directly 2) there is no intermediary. _________________ "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" - Mark Twain
the prisoner Joined: 18 Aug 2004 Posts: 23 |
Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 7:10 pm Post subject: |
From "Hindu critique of Mohammed" :
Quote:
If you read the Koran, you find the most wonderful truths
I read the Koran all the way through but couldn't find even one "wonderful truth". Can anyone enlighten me?
Quote:
So, where did the Quranic messages come from?...Throughout his career as a Prophet (except, as we shall see, at the very beginning), Mohammed genuinely believed that the visions and spoken messages which he “received” were of divine origin.
There is no contemporary record of Mohammed and his teachings, except for the Muslim scriptures themselves. These reveal that Mohammed initially believed that he had been possessed by one or more evil spirits and made several suicide attempts. Eventually his wife managed to persuade him that the spirit which was pursuing him was in fact an angel, and he then surrendered to it. How can form a judgement about this? Perhaps by examining 3 aspects : 1) the effect of his "prophethood" on his character and behaviour 2) the nature of his teachings 3) the history (especially the early history) of his religion _________________ "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" - Mark Twain
uddhava Joined: 20 Jan 2005 Posts: 142 Location: Paramdham |
Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 7:44 pm Post subject: |
the prisoner wrote:
It is not unknown (but a bit peculiar) for individuals to refer to themselves in the third person. However for Allah to say "surely Allah is Mighty, Wise" simply makes no sense. God does not worship himself. These are the words of a preacher encouraging the faithful (or faithless).
Ok but I wouldn't say that if Allah says 'Allah is mighty, wise' then he is worshipping himself - he could be just stating a fact. Whether or not it makes sense to you or me, it is the literary style of the Qur'an that God repeatedly refers to himself in the third person. It might make more sense to you that these are the words of a preacher but this is not the muslim view.
Quote:
The claim of Mohammed is that an angel told him something which came originally from Allah. No one else witnessed this - we rely on Mohammed's word that he really did experience that, and have no way to assess whether the angel/spirit was deceiving him or not.
Well the angel visited Mohammed on numerous occasions over a period of many years and I think there were witnesses for some of these occasions but the evidence is pretty ropey. I agree with the article quoted that Mohammed did not fabricate his experience but that he sincerely believed that God was speaking to him. Whether his belief was correct is of course another matter.
Quote:
In the BK case, the claim is that both Shiva and Brahma are speaking through the body of first Brahma and then Gulzar. This claim is of a different order as 1) you can witness this directly 2) there is no intermediary.
The 'intermediary' through whom God speaks is Brahma / Gulzar, although I agree that God-Brahma Baba is more immediate than God-Gabriel-Mohammed. I don't agree that you can witness directly that Shiva is speaking through the body of Brahma or Gulzar. What you can witness directly is Brahma Baba and Gulzar speaking in some kind of trance. The crucial point of God entering the body of Brahma / Gulzar is not witness-able - if it was then most of the world would be BK's. To play devil's advocate, we only have Brahma / Gulzar's interpretation of their experience - that God enters their body - and we have no objective way of verifying this.
bansy Joined: 08 Nov 2005 Posts: 84 |
Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 7:52 am Post subject: |
Quote:
Dear Bansy, Wrong on both counts, who told you this?
Sorry, I cannot recall who told me this.
Quote:
Anyway as there are problems with the Qur'an there are also problems with the murli as have been mentioned in this thread ie whether it is God speaking or just Brahma Baba.
Each soul of whatever religion needs to truly have faith in what they see, hear and read. But when one scripture (i.e the murlis) tells that other scriptures are irrelevant, is totally perplexing. However this could also be true. depending on your faith. Time will tell. I guess problems arise when there is no 100% faith.
John Joined: 26 Sep 2005 Posts: 157 Location: UK |
Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 10:23 am Post subject: |
Quote:
But when one scripture (i.e the murlis) tells that other scriptures are irrelevant, is totally perplexing.
Well the bible is relevant to christians as the Quran is relevant to muslims. I never heard really other scriptures were irrelevant. More like each contains a part of the puzzle and the Gyan from Shiva was the whole picture. Even if christian or muslim souls learnt raj yoga I still think they will understand it from there own religious perspective. The BK/PBK idea is that the religious founders learnt there knowledge from Shiva in the confluence age and in this age Shiva explains the true meaning behind the scriptures.
Display posts from previous:
| XBK Chat Forum Index -> XBK discussions | All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
Page 8 of 9
| You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group